Aims

The aim of this study was to assess factors associated with the estimated lifetime risk of revision surgery after primary knee arthroplasty (KA).

Objectives. The primary aim of this study was to assess the reproducibility of the recalled preoperative Oxford Hip Score (OHS) and Oxford Knee Score (OKS) one year following arthroplasty for a cohort of patients. The secondary aim was to assess the reliability of a patient’s recollection of their own preoperative OHS and OKS one year following surgery. Methods. A total of 335 patients (mean age 72.5; 22 to 92; 53.7% female) undergoing total hip arthroplasty (n = 178) and total knee arthroplasty (n = 157) were prospectively assessed. Patients undergoing hip and knee arthroplasty completed an OHS or OKS, respectively, preoperatively and were asked to recall their preoperative condition while completing the same score one year after surgery. Results. A mean difference of 0.04 points (95% confidence intervals (CI) -15.64 to 15.72, p = 0.97) between the actual and the recalled OHS was observed. The mean difference in the OKS was 1.59 points (95% CI -11.57 to 14.75, p = 0.10). There was excellent reliability for the ‘average measures’ intra-class correlation for both the OHS (r = 0.802) and the OKS (r = 0.772). However, this reliability was diminished for the individuals OHS (r = 0.670) and OKS (r = 0.629) using single measures intra-class correlation. Bland–Altman plots demonstrated wide variation in the individual patient’s ability to recall their preoperative score (95% CI ± 16 for OHS, 95% CI ± 13 for OKS). Conclusion. Prospective preoperative collection of OHS and OKS remains the benchmark. Using recalled scores one year following hip and knee arthroplasty is an alternative when used to assess a cohort of patients. However, the recall of an individual patient’s preoperative score should not be relied upon due to the diminished reliability and wide CI. Cite this article: T. F. M. Yeoman, N. D. Clement, D. Macdonald, M. Moran. Recall of preoperative Oxford Hip and Knee Scores one year after arthroplasty is an alternative and reliable technique when used for a cohort of patients. Bone Joint Res 2018;7:351–356. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.75.BJR-2017-0259.R1

The February 2023 Foot & Ankle Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Joint inflammatory response in ankle and pilon fractures; Tibiotalocalcaneal fusion with a custom cage; Topical application of tranexamic acid can reduce blood loss in calcaneal fractures; Risk factors for failure of total ankle arthroplasty; Pain catastrophizing: the same as pain forecasting?.

Aims

The aim of this study was to describe the prevalence and patterns of neuropathic pain over one year in a cohort of patients with chronic post-surgical pain at three months following total knee arthroplasty (TKA).

Aims. Failure of irrigation and debridement (I&D) for prosthetic joint infection (PJI) is influenced by numerous host, surgical, and pathogen-related factors. We aimed to develop and validate a practical, easy-to-use tool based on machine learning that may accurately predict outcome following I&D surgery taking into account the influence of numerous factors. Methods. This was an international, multicentre retrospective study of 1,174 revision total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasties (TKA) undergoing I&D for PJI between January 2005 and December 2017. PJI was defined using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) criteria. A total of 52 variables including demographics, comorbidities, and clinical and laboratory findings were evaluated using random forest machine learning analysis. The algorithm was then verified through cross-validation. Results. Of the 1,174 patients that were included in the study, 405 patients (34.5%) failed treatment. Using random forest analysis, an algorithm that provides the probability for failure for each specific patient was created. By order of importance, the ten most important variables associated with failure of I&D were serum CRP levels, positive blood cultures, indication for index arthroplasty other than osteoarthritis, not exchanging the modular components, use of immunosuppressive medication, late acute (haematogenous) infections, methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus infection, overlying skin infection, polymicrobial infection, and older age. The algorithm had good discriminatory capability (area under the curve = 0.74). Cross-validation showed similar probabilities comparing predicted and observed failures indicating high accuracy of the model. Conclusion. This is the first study in the orthopaedic literature to use machine learning as a tool for predicting outcomes following I&D surgery. The developed algorithm provides the medical profession with a tool that can be employed in clinical decision-making and improve patient care. Future studies should aid in further validating this tool on additional cohorts. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(7 Supple B):11–19

Aims

Unicompartmental knee arthroplasty (UKA) has higher revision rates than total knee arthroplasty (TKA). As revision of UKA may be less technically demanding than revision TKA, UKA patients with poor functional outcomes may be more likely to be offered revision than TKA patients with similar outcomes. The aim of this study was to compare clinical thresholds for revisions between TKA and UKA using revision incidence and patient-reported outcomes, in a large, matched cohort at early, mid-, and late-term follow-up.

Aims

This study describes the variation in the annual volumes of revision hip arthroplasty (RHA) undertaken by consultant surgeons nationally, and the rate of accrual of RHA and corresponding primary hip arthroplasty (PHA) volume for new consultants entering practice.

We aim to explore the potential technologies for monitoring and assessment of patients undergoing arthroplasty by examining selected literature focusing on the technology currently available and reflecting on possible future development and application. The reviewed literature indicates a large variety of different hardware and software, widely available and used in a limited manner, to assess patients’ performance. There are extensive opportunities to enhance and integrate the systems which are already in existence to develop patient-specific pathways for rehabilitation.

Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2022;104-B(10):1104–1109.

Aims. Local recurrence remains a challenging and common problem following curettage and joint-sparing surgery for giant cell tumour of bone (GCTB). We previously reported a 15% local recurrence rate at a median follow-up of 30 months in 20 patients with high-risk GCTB treated with neoadjuvant Denosumab. The aim of this study was to determine if this initial favourable outcome following the use of Denosumab was maintained with longer follow-up. Methods. Patients with GCTB of the limb considered high-risk for unsuccessful joint salvage, due to minimal periarticular and subchondral bone, large soft tissue mass, or pathological fracture, were treated with Denosumab followed by extended intralesional curettage with the goal of preserving the joint surface. Patients were followed for local recurrence, metastasis, and secondary sarcoma. Results. A total of 25 patients with a mean age of 33.8 years (18 to 67) with high-risk GCTB received median six cycles of Denosumab before surgery. Tumours occurred most commonly around the knee (17/25, 68%). The median follow-up was 57 months (interquartile range (IQR) 13 to 88). The joint was salvaged in 23 patients (92%). Two required knee arthroplasty due to intra-articular fracture and arthritis. Local recurrence developed in 11 patients (44%) at a mean of 32.5 months (3 to 75) following surgery, of whom four underwent repeat curettage and joint salvage. One patient developed secondary osteosarcoma and another benign GCT lung metastases. Conclusion. The use of Denosumab for joint salvage was associated with a higher than expected rate of local recurrence at 44%. Neoadjuvant Denosumab for joint-sparing procedures should be considered with caution in light of these results. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2021;103-B(1):184–191

The June 2023 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Characterizing recurrent infections after one-stage revision for periprosthetic joint infection of the knee; Predicted waiting times for orthopaedic surgery: an urgent need to address the deficit in capacity; Vascular impulse technology versus elevation for reducing the swelling of upper and lower limb joint fractures; Desperate patients will accept higher risks; How long does it take to find a positive culture in periprosthetic joint infection?

The February 2023 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Clinical and epidemiological features of scaphoid fracture nonunion; Routine sterile glove and instrument change at the time of abdominal wound closure to prevent surgical site infection (ChEETAh); Characterization of genetic risk of end-stage knee osteoarthritis treated with total knee arthroplasty; Platelet-rich plasma or autologous blood injection for plantar fasciitis; Volume and outcomes of joint arthroplasty; The hazards of absolute belief in the p-value laid bare.

Aims. Currently, there is no single, comprehensive national guideline for analgesic strategies for total joint replacement. We compared inpatient and outpatient opioid requirements following total hip arthroplasty (THA) versus total knee arthroplasty (TKA) in order to determine risk factors for increased inpatient and outpatient opioid requirements following total hip or knee arthroplasty. Methods. Outcomes after 92 primary total knee (n = 49) and hip (n = 43) arthroplasties were analyzed. Patients with repeat surgery within 90 days were excluded. Opioid use was recorded while inpatient and 90 days postoperatively. Outcomes included total opioid use, refills, use beyond 90 days, and unplanned clinical encounters for uncontrolled pain. Multivariate modelling determined the effect of surgery, regional nerve block (RNB) or neuraxial anesthesia (NA), and non-opioid medications after adjusting for demographics, ength of stay, and baseline opioid use. Results. TKAs had higher daily inpatient opioid use than THAs (in 5 mg oxycodone pill equivalents: median 12.0 vs 7.0; p < 0.001), and greater 90 day use (median 224.0 vs 100.5; p < 0.001). Opioid refills were more likely in TKA (84% vs 33%; p < 0.001). Patient who underwent TKA had higher independent risk of opioid use beyond 90 days than THA (adjusted OR 7.64; 95% SE 1.23 to 47.5; p = 0.01). Inpatient opioid use 24 hours before discharge was the strongest independent predictor of 90-day opioid use (p < 0.001). Surgical procedure, demographics, and baseline opioid use have greater influence on in/outpatient opioid demand than RNB, NA, or non-opioid analgesics. Conclusion. Opioid use following TKA and THA is most strongly predicted by surgical and patient factors. TKA was associated with higher postoperative opioid requirements than THA. RNB and NA did not diminish total inpatient or 90-day postoperative opioid consumption. The use of acetaminophen, gabapentin, or NSAIDs did not significantly alter inpatient opioid requirements. Cite this article: Bone Joint Open 2020;1-7:398–404

The August 2023 Research Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Can artificial intelligence improve the readability of patient education materials?; What is the value of radiology input during a multidisciplinary orthopaedic oncology conference?; Periprosthetic joint infection in patients with multiple arthroplasties; Orthopedic Surgery and Anesthesiology Surgical Improvement Strategies Project - Phase III outcomes; Knot tying in arthroplasty and arthroscopy causes lesions to surgical gloves: a potential risk of infection; Vascular calcification of the ankle in plain radiographs equals diabetes mellitus?

The December 2022 Knee Roundup³⁶⁰ looks at: Effect of physical therapy versus arthroscopic partial meniscectomy: the ESCAPE trial at five years; Patellofemoral arthroplasty or total knee arthroplasty: a randomized controlled trial; Rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction for anterior cruciate ligament injury; End-stage knee osteoarthritis in Australia: the effect of obesity; Do poor patient-reported outcome measures at six months relate to knee revision?; What is the cost of nonoperative interventions for knee osteoarthritis?